AIBU to suggest a mass boycott of TV licence payments?

[BoycottBBC]

"He received between £435,000 and £439,999 in the year 2022/2023, which rose to £475,000 - £479,999 between April 2023 and April 2024, the BBC's latest annual report shows.
Edwards remained on the payroll while suspended, which is normal BBC policy."

See attached article.

He has been charged with three accounts of making indecent images of children. Six category A images. 12 category B images. 19 category C images on his WhatsApp.

Do you think the BBC will try and clawback any of that huge amount or wages?

Do you think we can clawback any of our financial support of this organisation? Because I sure as fuck don't want to pay my licence fee towards this. It's sickening. (And I realise it's "optional" but for those who do need access to iplayer or live TV for education purposes or similar, it's effectively enforced)

Why?

I'd pay the licence fee for BBC world service alone.

Just use your phones internet browser, the app doesn't work for lots of things.

People should boycott that company anyway, prosecuting members of the public for not wanting to pay for your shitty company is deranged.

Lots of posters are shocked that people don't consume any BBC products, they're like 'what, not even the news or [various radio stations]?!' 😄. Nope. No TV or radio at all. Just content I actually choose.

I stopped watching live TV and paying my licence about 3 years ago. Don't miss it at all.

I was sick of the BBC becoming a Tory propaganda machine and losing its impartiality/independence.

I am not paying for the salary of the likes of Tory mouthpieces Laura Kuenssberg/Fiona Bruce or to see Reform being given a constant platform.

I also think it is outrageous that people are criminalised if they don't have a licence. This is an anachronism that needs to end.

Thanks for all replies. Apologies I am not 100% and annoyingly seem unable to be as articulate as I would like! Will try properly later.

In the meantime. Lots of interesting views here. I agree re the World Service and educational resources (but resented in lockdown it was pretty mandatory to pay a licence fee so pupils could access to these, I know a lot of parents were not happy about that. It's not a small amount to some people)

Quite a lot to pick apart in a specific BBC discussion. But (and ironically this is what made me post yesterday, the BBC article was the final straw) the main impression from this thread is that everyone is aware there are sexual offenders in every industry/company. There seems to just be an acceptance of this, and a "what can you do?" shrugging attitude. We need to discuss how we can raise the bar to genuine zero tolerance, not just acceptance. I think I was wrong to focus on HE/BBC as it's just a symptom or one example.

Again, lots of focus on the wider procedure of companies paying salaries whilst people are suspended. And the innocent until proven guilty aspect. We are accepting on this thread that there are a LOT of guilty people out there in all walks of life. Perhaps this is one thing that needs to change and salaries suspended whilst people are suspended for being under investigation into child abuse/violence and rape. (Not wording this correctly will come back later hopefully) Yes I realise this punishes all people and innocent along with guilty but we obviously accept a high proportion of people ARE abusers/rapists - not just the BBC but even the police. And yes NAMALT ("not all men are rapists", for those unfamiliar with term) but all rapists are men. We don't all drink drive but we accept our insurance premiums are higher because of incidents including drink driving. And we don't burgle houses but our house insurance is higher (definitely in my area!) because a lot of other people do. The innocent get punished in situations like this. I'm not explaining myself properly I know.

I am just sick beyond belief of male violence and how it never ever ever ends. We need serious action.

Our whole legal system is based on innocent until proven guilty
Even now HE isn't guilty yet he's.only been charged as yet
In work places ,when somebody is suspended it is not supposed to be a punitive measure it's supposed to be a measure taken to protect both the Employee and Employer whilst an investigation takes place.

Saville wasn't their fault. You clearly weren't around for the Falklands' War.

I agree with this.

I agree it wasn’t necessarily the BBC’s fault, but they should definitely be held accountable for it, because they employed Savile - and several other sex offenders.

Saville had an awful lot to do with the NHS too, shall we shut that down too, and all the charities he raised funds for?

No, you do not need a licence to listen to the radio, but if the funding for the BBC goes you won't have it to listen to. I can do without Radio 4 these days (too woke by half) but I listen to Radio 3 and I pick up the Proms when I can and my late DH used to listen to our local radio station.

Ast to the Promendade Concerts, the UK should be proud to have the largest classical music festival in the world.
Not forgetting the thousands of jobs that would go if the BBC went under - not just actors, producers, newsreaders, reporters etc., but caterers, costume-makers, researchers, hairdressers, make-up artists etc. They are not going to be employed to such a degree by commercial stations.

They colluded with him though and nobody was allowed to question him or accuse him of anything he was "St Jim"
Also why was he allowed to wander around Hospitals unchecked abusing very vulnerable patients, what Hold did he have over the powers that be ?

Not only the BBC. Sex pests seem to be rampant across all the media, businesses etc. The people responsible for sex pests are the sex pests. Not dealing with the is another matter - and depends on evidence. Rumour and anecdote will not do.

The point iis that just because you enjoy radio 3 and the Proms and everything else the BBC has to offer, not everyone does

I didn’t say anything anywhere in my post about shutting down the BBC. What I said was that the BBC should be held accountable - because they absolutely should.

I mentioned the BBC specifically - and not the NHS, or charities that Savile worked with, or anywhere or anyone else associated with him - because they’re the subject of this thread.

True - though not R4 these days. But just because I do not enjoy football, or rap, or a variety of other things does not mean I want to stop other people enjoying them. But defunding the BBC would remove a public broadcaster which does a great swathe of things - from Radio 1 and 2 to the World Service - that no-one else is going to do. And when it has gone there will be no getting it back - a bit like the large chunk of the Lake District that used to be publicly owned by the Water Board and now is in private hands because the provision of water became commodified and an industry, rather than a service.

I mentioned the BBC as that’s the focus of this thread. I 100% agree that handling any sort of serious allegation - sexual or otherwise - should be rooted in solid evidence. I do think the BBC should be held accountable though, because they employed Savile, and I stand by that.

EDIT: the BBC knew about the allegations around Savile long before they were publicly reported and I think they should have investigated these allegations much more thoroughly and urgently.

The BBC's standard have dropped as it's become more woke.

They cannot even SPELL "TV licence" - see screenshot I took last week.

Yes but your not being asked to fund football ,nor are you being sent letters asking you to let them know that you are not watching football in your own home ,and telling you they might send someone round to check you are not watching foot ball.

You’re now suggesting it’s the BBC’s fault that Saville was able to access vulnerable patients in hospitals? Wow they have more power than I imagined 🙄

The BBC are not responsible for Saville's abuses in hospitals, however, he was a much touted BBC person. The BBC covered for him, they did not look into the allegations that were being made, they enabled him to be Teflon, they gave him prime time television programmes which featured children.

A number of people had raised questions regarding his behaviour which the BBC shut down and would not investigate, these from his early days on TOTP. The BBC would not open their eyes and even do the most basic checks into the claims against him.

Saville thrived in his abuse because he was deemed untouchable and the BBC played a large part in that.

No of course not ,that was just my second point
He must have had friends in high places though to be able to do just what he wanted and be able to get away with everything.

I read the BBC, Guardian, i and Daily Mail
on a regular basis. I’d say the BBC is more independent than the Guardian and DM but not as in-depth. Far more information than the DM. If you just read that you’d have no clue what was going on in the world. The BBC isn’t perfect but it’s better than only having commercially invested news sources.

The BBC has become ‘more woke’. What does that mean? I’ve only ever seen and heard people using ‘woke’ as an insult or criticism. What exactly does the BBC do that is woke?

The BBC definitely played a part in enabling Saville to commit some of his crimes, they have admitted as much. The Edwards case is different, so far as we know. We don’t actually know how he met/accessed the victims. Saville accessed a lot of victims via ‘Jim’ll Fix It’ and abused children on BBC premises.